05-04-2006, 10:14 AM
05-04-2006, 10:20 AM
what a waste
what is a point of that, life sentence without parol. Just fry his ass and save your money
what is a point of that, life sentence without parol. Just fry his ass and save your money
05-04-2006, 10:46 AM
I think it was a no-win situtation.
On one hand if you let him sit in jail for the rest of his life, you prolly piss of a whole lot of the american population. On the other hand, if you kill him he becomes a martyr for his cause.
Tough choice for the jurors. Personally i woulda sent him to the chair.
On one hand if you let him sit in jail for the rest of his life, you prolly piss of a whole lot of the american population. On the other hand, if you kill him he becomes a martyr for his cause.
Tough choice for the jurors. Personally i woulda sent him to the chair.
05-04-2006, 11:00 AM
habmann,May 3 2006, 08:46 PM Wrote:Tough choice for the jurors. Personally i woulda sent him to the chair.
[right][snapback]185138[/snapback][/right]
Amen on that one. That jury was screwed either way on making the population happy.
And right before they flipped the switch.. tell him "By the way, all those virgins that were supposed to be waiting for you... i did all the hot ones. I left the hoggers for you."
I'm just glad its over with. Getting tired of having to hear about this day in and day out. I lost a friend who worked in the towers (still haven't found her remains), but I've since moved on and gotten over it.
05-04-2006, 12:12 PM
I'm generally against capital punishment because it is for the most part ineffective as a deterrent, but I think there are valid exceptions to this line of thinking (eg. cops, children) and I would have also made an exception in this case.
Having said that, I think from this guy's point of view he actually got the worst punishment - no martyrdom and no "virgins" and a very long time being confined and separated from his people.
What's more, his death would have given a boost to his cause and there's no justice to be had in that.
The jury had a really tough job to do and I think they made the right choice.
Having said that, I think from this guy's point of view he actually got the worst punishment - no martyrdom and no "virgins" and a very long time being confined and separated from his people.
What's more, his death would have given a boost to his cause and there's no justice to be had in that.
The jury had a really tough job to do and I think they made the right choice.
05-04-2006, 08:19 PM
Life in prison is a better sentence in this case. He will not be popular and I'll bet the guards won't be so likely to protect him. Yep death penalty would have been the easy way out for this guy.
05-04-2006, 10:00 PM
torradan,May 3 2006, 09:00 PM Wrote:Amen on that one. That jury was screwed either way on making the population happy
Completely agree.
05-04-2006, 10:29 PM
I'd rather throw him in jail. I'd throw him in a cell with 3 other guys. The cellmates would be hand picked and paid off to make his life a living hell 24/7.
Also on the anniversary of 9/11, they'd be told to rip off one of Moussaoui's appendages (fingers, toes, etc) using pliers, a rusty knife, and a hammer..
Also on the anniversary of 9/11, they'd be told to rip off one of Moussaoui's appendages (fingers, toes, etc) using pliers, a rusty knife, and a hammer..
05-04-2006, 11:05 PM
I agree with Oscar. He's not a "shining martyr" when his anal cavity could successfully hide the QE2 and he's forced to gum his Ensure shakes.
f*** him. Let him rot. Make sure he suffers a good long time for what he did. He doesn't deserve the release of death from his misdeeds.
f*** him. Let him rot. Make sure he suffers a good long time for what he did. He doesn't deserve the release of death from his misdeeds.
05-04-2006, 11:18 PM
ZTWsquared,May 3 2006, 09:12 PM Wrote:I'm generally against capital punishment because it is for the most part ineffective as a deterrent, but I think there are valid exceptions to this line of thinking (eg. cops, children) and I would have also made an exception in this case.
I still don't understand the logic behind automatic death penalties for killing police officers. Are their lives worth more than anyone else? Are they such a more valuable member of society that we should kill their murderers? Because no one in my family is a cop, and I think their lives are just as worthwhile as any police officer. In my mind, more so. I'm sure anyone here would feel the same.
However, if it is done to "send a message", it falls on deaf ears. Anyone who would otherwise kill a cop isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty. They already know they'd be in deep s**t, and don't really care. Hell, in some cases it adds even bigger bragging rights to the idiots who glamourise the criminal lifestyle.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of capital punishment, but my main concern is - what if they didn't actually do it? There is often that very slight., faint doubt. Numerous cases throughout recent US history have shown errors made where innocent people have been killed. Not just one or two here and there. We're talking a lot of people. Capital punishment is irreversable. What if David Milgard had been put to death? The murder of that nurse was vicious, and if anyone deserved to be killed for their crime it was her murderer. Not the innnocent in his place, David Milgard. Short of cases that include video evidence combined with DNA and witness testimony, there are few instances where there isn't a shadow of doubt invovled. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, would you?
Now I'm not saying there is much doubt in Moussaoui's case, to be honest I haven't followed it at all. I'd imagine it's probably pretty exaustively researched, and a pretty much open and shut case. But the entire 9/11 investigation has been severely flawed from the start, including listing several terrorists who supposedly died on the planes that in fact were living alive and well overseas. Oops.
Bet this starts a bit of discussion... ;)
P.S. - As a side note, I find it a bit perplexing that he shouted "America you lost - I won" after the verdict was read. If his goal was to die for his cause, as a suicide bomber, then wouldn't the ultimate "victory" for him would have been to be put to death in this instance, making him a historical martyr? Then why would he rather live. Does he really have no idea how awful his life will be in prison?
Or, maybe things won't be as bad for him as we think. Given the high publicity in this case, there will probably be many scummy lawyers looking to protect him, and if anything happens, they may sounds some very loud bells. :unsure:
05-05-2006, 01:51 AM
Should have just tortured him for the next 40 years. He gonna wish he was dead.
He won in my eyes.
He won in my eyes.
05-05-2006, 01:57 AM
He was a bit player in the grand scheme of things. He also lied about his involvement to make himself look more important than he was !! He is going to the Supermax in Colorado - essentially solitary confinement for the rest of his life. No contact whatsoever with any inmates only the guards ( and very limited at that ) One hour of fresh air/exercise - alone. To me this is better than execution - its slow torture. BTW - I'm not a fan of the death penalty.
05-05-2006, 03:51 AM
Since you ask Cheffy, let me give you my take on it â ** warning - long post ahead.**
Cops put themselves at a much greater risk of being murdered in a way that the rest of us never will, on our behalf and as part of their job description â and importantly, their risk includes people who donât know them and would never come in contact with them except for their job. The fact is in Canada the greatest risk is to be murdered by someone you know.
To whatever degree capital punishment might be a deterrent against cop killing, IMO they at least deserve that protection.
There are a number of studies that indicate that the death sentence is not a deterrent to homicide. These studies generally compare the murder rate of one area that has the death penalty to another that does not; and indeed from these studies it would appear that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
But these studies are useless in terms of assessing whether or not a cop-killer specific application of the death penalty is a deterrent, because the overwhelming number of murders are not cop murders and the statistics donât apply. These studies are also useless because they do not compare a âcop onlyâ death sentence area, to a âno death sentenceâ area, which is the comparison you really want to see.
Thereâs a lot of opinion on this issue, but I canât find any fact based arguments against the idea. If you can show me definitive proof that a cop-killer only application of the death penalty is no deterrent to the murder of cops, I will change my opinion.
Cheffy,May 4 2006, 09:18 AM Wrote:I still don't understand the logic behind automatic death penalties for killing police officers. Are their lives worth more than anyone else?The short answer is ânoâ their lives are not worth more â but your question and the answer is only relevant if the purpose of capital punishment is retribution or revenge. If the purpose is to deter future homicides however, the difference between cops and regular citizens is not only relevant, it is the key. And BTW, I have no cops in my family either.
Cops put themselves at a much greater risk of being murdered in a way that the rest of us never will, on our behalf and as part of their job description â and importantly, their risk includes people who donât know them and would never come in contact with them except for their job. The fact is in Canada the greatest risk is to be murdered by someone you know.
To whatever degree capital punishment might be a deterrent against cop killing, IMO they at least deserve that protection.
Cheffy,May 4 2006, 09:18 AM Wrote:Anyone who would otherwise kill a cop isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty. They already know they'd be in deep s**t, and don't really care.If this is your opinion, I can accept that you think this way. But you state it as fact and Iâd like to know your source first before accepting it as fact. Additiionally you make a very broad assumption about the possible circumstances of a potential cop killing. But for every instance you could imagine where it wouldnât make a difference, I can come up with one where it would.
There are a number of studies that indicate that the death sentence is not a deterrent to homicide. These studies generally compare the murder rate of one area that has the death penalty to another that does not; and indeed from these studies it would appear that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
But these studies are useless in terms of assessing whether or not a cop-killer specific application of the death penalty is a deterrent, because the overwhelming number of murders are not cop murders and the statistics donât apply. These studies are also useless because they do not compare a âcop onlyâ death sentence area, to a âno death sentenceâ area, which is the comparison you really want to see.
Thereâs a lot of opinion on this issue, but I canât find any fact based arguments against the idea. If you can show me definitive proof that a cop-killer only application of the death penalty is no deterrent to the murder of cops, I will change my opinion.
Cheffy,May 4 2006, 09:18 AM Wrote:I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of capital punishment, but my main concern is - what if they didn't actually do it?I agree with you here ⦠but the opportunity to get it wrong is greatly reduced if the death penalty is applied only to cop killers by virtue of the numbers. In any event, Iâm not advocating that we execute people without absolute proof that theyâre guilty.
Cheffy,May 4 2006, 09:18 AM Wrote:As a side note, I find it a bit perplexing that he shouted "America you lost - I won" after the verdict was read.IMO itâs really simple â itâs all spin. Iâll bet he rehearsed that line hundreds of times in his head long before the jury started deliberating; I have no doubt he planned to use that line regardless of the outcome.
05-05-2006, 04:33 AM
I still like what my dad said in the car when he heard this come across the news on the radio, he should be sent into the " Gen pop " ( general population of a prision ) instead of being locked up in some fed prision for life because all the inmates in " gen pop " would have him dead with in a week under the guise of a riot.
After all it's what happens to most serial child rapists, and murders like Jeffery Dalmer, and the attempt on Burnardo.
After all it's what happens to most serial child rapists, and murders like Jeffery Dalmer, and the attempt on Burnardo.
05-07-2006, 03:16 AM
Sorry about the long delayed reply, been a bit busy lately.
Even if it is negligible?
Exactly. Circumstances vary significantly, but are the people processing the case looking at it this way? No, they're seeing a "cop killer", are pressured by the police force (who hold a lot of sway), the public, and various other organisations to prosecute to the maximum extent. The notion of a "cop killer" often portrays someone as being much more terrible than your average criminal. The crime of murdering a police officer is no worse than the crime of killing any other person, and therefore should not be punished to any greater degree. If capital punishment is a greater deterrent, than it would have to be applied as punishment for all murders.
Got nothing other than internet opinion pieces. I'm sure there is plenty of info out there supporting both arguments, but I think I speak for both of us when I say that our opinions here are just that - opinions. I'm too bloody lazy to spend a couple of hours researching a capital punishment discussion in the off-topic forum of an auto repair/tuning website. However I think we can make good logical arguments that have self-evident type of reasonings, and I'm mroe than willing to give'er a shot. ;)
|This is true, but I'm of the camp that court decisions ruling out reasonable doubt often don't, and that court-rooms are as politically motivated as evidence based. I'm a scientist, and I believe very strongly in empirical evidence, and find anecdotal and witness testimony to make poor evidence. Human memory is incredibly unreliable, and often twisted, whether conciously or otherwise.
I guess what I'm saying is that I could only support the death penalty in these instances if there was an abundance of indisputable physical evidence, third-party verification of the entire case to ensure there was no tampering with evidence and witnesses, and no underlying political motivations. But it would then ahve to apply to ALL murder cases, and not just those of police officers.
This is a tricky situation that most reasonable people would find reasons for and against. Your arguments were well written, and made me ponder my own points - like a good debate should. Anyone 100% certain of their own convictions probably hasn't thought them through very well.
Thanks! :)
ZTWsquared,May 4 2006, 12:51 PM Wrote:To whatever degree capital punishment might be a deterrent against cop killing, IMO they at least deserve that protection.
Even if it is negligible?
ZTWsquared,May 4 2006, 12:51 PM Wrote:If this is your opinion, I can accept that you think this way. But you state it as fact and Iâd like to know your source first before accepting it as fact. Additiionally you make a very broad assumption about the possible circumstances of a potential cop killing. But for every instance you could imagine where it wouldnât make a difference, I can come up with one where it would.
Exactly. Circumstances vary significantly, but are the people processing the case looking at it this way? No, they're seeing a "cop killer", are pressured by the police force (who hold a lot of sway), the public, and various other organisations to prosecute to the maximum extent. The notion of a "cop killer" often portrays someone as being much more terrible than your average criminal. The crime of murdering a police officer is no worse than the crime of killing any other person, and therefore should not be punished to any greater degree. If capital punishment is a greater deterrent, than it would have to be applied as punishment for all murders.
ZTWsquared,May 4 2006, 12:51 PM Wrote:Thereâs a lot of opinion on this issue, but I canât find any fact based arguments against the idea. If you can show me definitive proof that a cop-killer only application of the death penalty is no deterrent to the murder of cops, I will change my opinion.
Got nothing other than internet opinion pieces. I'm sure there is plenty of info out there supporting both arguments, but I think I speak for both of us when I say that our opinions here are just that - opinions. I'm too bloody lazy to spend a couple of hours researching a capital punishment discussion in the off-topic forum of an auto repair/tuning website. However I think we can make good logical arguments that have self-evident type of reasonings, and I'm mroe than willing to give'er a shot. ;)
ZTWsquared,May 4 2006, 12:51 PM Wrote:I agree with you here ⦠but the opportunity to get it wrong is greatly reduced if the death penalty is applied only to cop killers by virtue of the numbers. In any event, Iâm not advocating that we execute people without absolute proof that theyâre guilty.
|This is true, but I'm of the camp that court decisions ruling out reasonable doubt often don't, and that court-rooms are as politically motivated as evidence based. I'm a scientist, and I believe very strongly in empirical evidence, and find anecdotal and witness testimony to make poor evidence. Human memory is incredibly unreliable, and often twisted, whether conciously or otherwise.
I guess what I'm saying is that I could only support the death penalty in these instances if there was an abundance of indisputable physical evidence, third-party verification of the entire case to ensure there was no tampering with evidence and witnesses, and no underlying political motivations. But it would then ahve to apply to ALL murder cases, and not just those of police officers.
This is a tricky situation that most reasonable people would find reasons for and against. Your arguments were well written, and made me ponder my own points - like a good debate should. Anyone 100% certain of their own convictions probably hasn't thought them through very well.
Thanks! :)